[PPT] - Electroweak Tests of the Standard Model Jens Erler (IF-UNAM) PASCOS PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Electroweak Tests of the Standard Model

Jens Erler (IF-UNAM) PASCOS 2012 — Mérida, Yuc. (Mexico) June 7, 2012

1

SLIDE 2

Electroweak Tests of the Standard Model

Jens Erler (IF-UNAM) PASCOS 2012 — Mérida, Yuc. (Mexico) June 7, 2012

found anything?

2

SLIDE 3

Electroweak Tests of the Standard Model

Jens Erler (IF-UNAM) PASCOS 2012 — Mérida, Yuc. (Mexico) June 7, 2012

found anything?

just the Higgs

3

SLIDE 4

Many Thanks

4

SLIDE 5

Many Thanks

for invitation: organizers (especially Myriam Mondragon)

4

SLIDE 6

Many Thanks

for invitation: organizers (especially Myriam Mondragon) for collaboration and plots: Leo Bellantoni (FNAL) Jon Heckman, Paul Langacker (IAS Princeton) Krishna Kumar (Amherst, MA) Sky Bauman, Michael Ramsey-Musolf (Madison, WI) Eduardo Rojas (IF-UNAM, Mexico)

4

SLIDE 7

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

5

SLIDE 8

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

6

SLIDE 9

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

7

SLIDE 10

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

8

SLIDE 11

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

9

SLIDE 12

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

10

SLIDE 13

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

11

SLIDE 14

Table of the Elementary Particles

ντ

s=½

~ 0

τ−

s=½

1.9075

τ+

s=½

1.9075

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

t̅

s=½

176

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

b̅

s=½

4.5

νμ

s=½

~ 0

μ−

s=½

0.11343

μ+

s=½

0.11343

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

c̅

s=½

1.4

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

s̅

s=½

0.1

νe

s=½

~ 0

e−

s=½

0.00055

e+

s=½

0.00055

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

u̅

s=½

0.003

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

d̅

s=½

0.005

H

s=0

134

H±

s=0

86.3 ξ

Z

s=1

97.9

W−

s=1

86.3

W+

s=1

86.3

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

g

s=1

γ

s=1

G

s=2

12

SLIDE 15

History of Precision Tests

13

SLIDE 16

History of Precision Tests

1970s: discovery of key predictions of the SM (neutral currents, APV, polarized DIS)

13

SLIDE 17

History of Precision Tests

1970s: discovery of key predictions of the SM (neutral currents, APV, polarized DIS) 1980s: establishment of basic structure of the SM (mutually consistent values of sin2θW = g′2∕(g2 + g′2) from many different processes)

13

SLIDE 18

History of Precision Tests

1970s: discovery of key predictions of the SM (neutral currents, APV, polarized DIS) 1980s: establishment of basic structure of the SM (mutually consistent values of sin2θW = g′2∕(g2 + g′2) from many different processes) 1990s (LEP , SLC): confirmation of the SM at the loop level ⇒ new physics at most a perturbation

13

SLIDE 19

History of Precision Tests

1970s: discovery of key predictions of the SM (neutral currents, APV, polarized DIS) 1980s: establishment of basic structure of the SM (mutually consistent values of sin2θW = g′2∕(g2 + g′2) from many different processes) 1990s (LEP , SLC): confirmation of the SM at the loop level ⇒ new physics at most a perturbation 2000s (Tevatron): ultra-high precision in mt (0.5%) and MW (2×10-4) ⇒ (most of) new physics seperated by at least a little hierarchy (or else conspiracy)

13

SLIDE 20

History of Precision Tests

1970s: discovery of key predictions of the SM (neutral currents, APV, polarized DIS) 1980s: establishment of basic structure of the SM (mutually consistent values of sin2θW = g′2∕(g2 + g′2) from many different processes) 1990s (LEP , SLC): confirmation of the SM at the loop level ⇒ new physics at most a perturbation 2000s (Tevatron): ultra-high precision in mt (0.5%) and MW (2×10-4) ⇒ (most of) new physics seperated by at least a little hierarchy (or else conspiracy) 2010s (LHC, intensity frontier): electroweak symmetry breaking sector

13

SLIDE 21

Recent Developments

14

SLIDE 22

μ−-lifetime and GF

15

SLIDE 23

μ−-lifetime and GF

τμ = 2.1969803(2.2) × 10−6 s MuLan 2011 ⇒

15

SLIDE 24

μ−-lifetime and GF

τμ = 2.1969803(2.2) × 10−6 s MuLan 2011 ⇒ GF = 1.1663787(6) × 10−5 GeV−2

15

SLIDE 25

μ−-lifetime and GF

τμ = 2.1969803(2.2) × 10−6 s MuLan 2011 ⇒ GF = 1.1663787(6) × 10−5 GeV−2 so precise that error in atomic mass unit (u) can shift GF (MuLan quotes GF = 1.1663788(7) × 10−5 GeV−2)

15

SLIDE 26

μ−-lifetime and GF

τμ = 2.1969803(2.2) × 10−6 s MuLan 2011 ⇒ GF = 1.1663787(6) × 10−5 GeV−2 so precise that error in atomic mass unit (u) can shift GF (MuLan quotes GF = 1.1663788(7) × 10−5 GeV−2) finite MW in the W-propagator no longer negligible: correct for, i.e., absorb in Δq: τμ−1 ~ GF2 (1+ Δq)

r not, i.e., absorb in Δr: √32 GF ≡ g2∕MW2 (1+ Δr)

latter convention motivated by effective Fermi theory point

f view and used by MuLan, and since this year also in PDG

15

SLIDE 27

τ−-lifetime and αs

16

SLIDE 28

τ−-lifetime and αs

at least one low-energy αs-value needed to promote Z-width to a SM test (constraint on BSM physics).

16

SLIDE 29

τ−-lifetime and αs

at least one low-energy αs-value needed to promote Z-width to a SM test (constraint on BSM physics). recent developments: 4-loop PQCD coefficient Baikov, Chetyrkin, Kühn 2008 FOPT vs. CIPT controversy Le Diberder, Pich 1992; Beneke, Jamin 2008 fit to condensate terms Davier et al. 2008; Boito et al. 2012

16

SLIDE 30

τ−-lifetime and αs

at least one low-energy αs-value needed to promote Z-width to a SM test (constraint on BSM physics). recent developments: 4-loop PQCD coefficient Baikov, Chetyrkin, Kühn 2008 FOPT vs. CIPT controversy Le Diberder, Pich 1992; Beneke, Jamin 2008 fit to condensate terms Davier et al. 2008; Boito et al. 2012 αs [τ] = 0.1193 ± 0.0021

16

SLIDE 31

τ−-lifetime and αs

at least one low-energy αs-value needed to promote Z-width to a SM test (constraint on BSM physics). recent developments: 4-loop PQCD coefficient Baikov, Chetyrkin, Kühn 2008 FOPT vs. CIPT controversy Le Diberder, Pich 1992; Beneke, Jamin 2008 fit to condensate terms Davier et al. 2008; Boito et al. 2012 αs [τ] = 0.1193 ± 0.0021 αs [Z-pole] = 0.1197 ± 0.0028 (perfect agreement)

nly determination with very small theory uncertainty

16

SLIDE 32

NuTeV

17

SLIDE 33

NuTeV

sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.2277 ± 0.0016

17

SLIDE 34

NuTeV

sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.2277 ± 0.0016 SM: sin2θW = 0.22296 ± 0.00028 (3.0 σ deviation)

17

SLIDE 35

NuTeV

sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.2277 ± 0.0016 SM: sin2θW = 0.22296 ± 0.00028 (3.0 σ deviation) deviation sits in gL2 (2.7 σ)

17

SLIDE 36

NuTeV

sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.2277 ± 0.0016 SM: sin2θW = 0.22296 ± 0.00028 (3.0 σ deviation) deviation sits in gL2 (2.7 σ) various SM effects have been suggested: asymmetric strange sea isospin violation (QED splitting effects Glück, Jimenez-Delgado, Reya 2005 and PDFs

Sather 1992; Rodionov, Thomas, Londergan 1994; Martin et al. 2004)

nuclear effects (e.g., isovector EMC effect Cloët, Bentz, Thomas 2009) QED Arbuzov, Bardin, Kalinovskaya 2005; Park, Baur, Wackeroth 2009, Diener, Dittmaier, Hollik 2004 QCD Dobrescu, Ellis 2004 and EW Diener, Dittmaier, Hollik 2005 radiative corrections

17

SLIDE 37

NuTeV

sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.2277 ± 0.0016 SM: sin2θW = 0.22296 ± 0.00028 (3.0 σ deviation) deviation sits in gL2 (2.7 σ) various SM effects have been suggested: asymmetric strange sea isospin violation (QED splitting effects Glück, Jimenez-Delgado, Reya 2005 and PDFs

Sather 1992; Rodionov, Thomas, Londergan 1994; Martin et al. 2004)

nuclear effects (e.g., isovector EMC effect Cloët, Bentz, Thomas 2009) QED Arbuzov, Bardin, Kalinovskaya 2005; Park, Baur, Wackeroth 2009, Diener, Dittmaier, Hollik 2004 QCD Dobrescu, Ellis 2004 and EW Diener, Dittmaier, Hollik 2005 radiative corrections situation not conclusive; breaking news @CIPANP: Bob Bernstein confirms that NuTeV fitting functions were applied correctly by Cloët et al.

17

SLIDE 38

MW

18

SLIDE 39

MW

MW = 80.387 ± 0.016 GeV CDF & D0 2012 (±19 MeV CDF 2.2 fb−1)

18

SLIDE 40

MW

MW = 80.387 ± 0.016 GeV CDF & D0 2012 (±19 MeV CDF 2.2 fb−1) MW = 80.376 ± 0.033 GeV LEP 2 ⇒ sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.22290 ± 0.00028 ⇒ sin2θWeff = 0.23141 ± 0.00013 and MH = 96+29−25 GeV

18

SLIDE 41

MW

MW = 80.387 ± 0.016 GeV CDF & D0 2012 (±19 MeV CDF 2.2 fb−1) MW = 80.376 ± 0.033 GeV LEP 2 ⇒ sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.22290 ± 0.00028 ⇒ sin2θWeff = 0.23141 ± 0.00013 and MH = 96+29−25 GeV new global electroweak fit: MH = 102+24−20 GeV JE 2012

18

SLIDE 42

MW

MW = 80.387 ± 0.016 GeV CDF & D0 2012 (±19 MeV CDF 2.2 fb−1) MW = 80.376 ± 0.033 GeV LEP 2 ⇒ sin2θWon-shell ≡ 1 − MW2∕MZ2 = 0.22290 ± 0.00028 ⇒ sin2θWeff = 0.23141 ± 0.00013 and MH = 96+29−25 GeV new global electroweak fit: MH = 102+24−20 GeV JE 2012 prospects for 10 fb−1: no PDF (±10 MeV) & QED (±4 MeV) improvement ⇒ ±13 MeV CDF most optimistic scenario ⇒ ±10 MeV CDF

cf. with ILC threshold scan: ±6 MeV

18

SLIDE 43

mt

19

SLIDE 44

mt

mt = 173.4 ± 0.9exp ± 0.5th GeV

19

SLIDE 45

mt

mt = 173.4 ± 0.9exp ± 0.5th GeV Question: What is the definition of mt? Correct but useless answer: mt ≡ mtPythia (“Pythia tuning parameter”) We assume mtPythia = mtpole ± ΛQCD where mtpole ≡ m̅t(m̅t) [1 + 4∕3 αs(m̅t)∕π + O(αs2) + O(αs3)] and ΛQCD ≡ the O(αs3) term above (see also Skands, Wicke 2007)

19

SLIDE 46

mt

mt = 173.4 ± 0.9exp ± 0.5th GeV Question: What is the definition of mt? Correct but useless answer: mt ≡ mtPythia (“Pythia tuning parameter”) We assume mtPythia = mtpole ± ΛQCD where mtpole ≡ m̅t(m̅t) [1 + 4∕3 αs(m̅t)∕π + O(αs2) + O(αs3)] and ΛQCD ≡ the O(αs3) term above (see also Skands, Wicke 2007) Alternative I: SCET + HQET → “jet mass” Fleming, Hoang, Mantry, Stewart 2008

19

SLIDE 47

mt

mt = 173.4 ± 0.9exp ± 0.5th GeV Question: What is the definition of mt? Correct but useless answer: mt ≡ mtPythia (“Pythia tuning parameter”) We assume mtPythia = mtpole ± ΛQCD where mtpole ≡ m̅t(m̅t) [1 + 4∕3 αs(m̅t)∕π + O(αs2) + O(αs3)] and ΛQCD ≡ the O(αs3) term above (see also Skands, Wicke 2007) Alternative I: SCET + HQET → “jet mass” Fleming, Hoang, Mantry, Stewart 2008 Alternative II: get m̅t(m̅t) directly from t t ̅ cross-section ⇒ m̅t(m̅t) = 160.0 ± 3.3 GeV Langenfeld, Moch, Uwer 2008 ⇒ MH = 81+32−24 GeV (mtpole = 169.6 ± 3.5 GeV)

19

SLIDE 48

20

160 165 170 175 180 185

mt [GeV]

80.30 80.35 80.40 80.45

MW [GeV]

direct (1σ) indirect (1σ) all precision data (90%) allowed by Higgs searches excluded by 1 experiment excluded by > 1 experiment

JE 2012

20

SLIDE 49

21

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

[GeV]

0.228 0.23 0.232 0.234 0.236 0.238 0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25

sin

2W()

Q Q

W

QW (Ra) (Cs)

SLAC E158

W(e)

QWeak QWeak

NuTeV

DIS

LEP 1 SLC Tevatron CMS

SOLID MOLLER

JLab JLab Mainz KVI Boulder JLab

PVDIS 6 GeV

JLab screening anti-screening

SM published

ngoing

proposed

Z

W

W Z

f

21

SLIDE 50

Parity-violating electron scattering (PVES)

22

SLIDE 51

Parity-violating electron scattering (PVES)

Qweak: measurement of QW(p) ~ 1 − 4 sin2θW to 4% in elastic polarized e− p scattering data taking completed similar quantity as weak charges measured in APV, but different kinematics ⇒ re-enhancement of γ-Z box also at MESA in Mainz? (if not then MAMI)

22

SLIDE 52

Parity-violating electron scattering (PVES)

Qweak: measurement of QW(p) ~ 1 − 4 sin2θW to 4% in elastic polarized e− p scattering data taking completed similar quantity as weak charges measured in APV, but different kinematics ⇒ re-enhancement of γ-Z box also at MESA in Mainz? (if not then MAMI) MOLLER: ultra-high precision sin2θW measurement in polarized e− e− scattering at 12 GeV CEBAF improvement over SLAC-E158 by factor of 5

22

SLIDE 53

Parity-violating electron scattering (PVES)

Qweak: measurement of QW(p) ~ 1 − 4 sin2θW to 4% in elastic polarized e− p scattering data taking completed similar quantity as weak charges measured in APV, but different kinematics ⇒ re-enhancement of γ-Z box also at MESA in Mainz? (if not then MAMI) MOLLER: ultra-high precision sin2θW measurement in polarized e− e− scattering at 12 GeV CEBAF improvement over SLAC-E158 by factor of 5 PVDIS and SOLID: array of kinematics points to test strong, EW & new physics

22

SLIDE 54

Parity-violating electron scattering (PVES)

Qweak: measurement of QW(p) ~ 1 − 4 sin2θW to 4% in elastic polarized e− p scattering data taking completed similar quantity as weak charges measured in APV, but different kinematics ⇒ re-enhancement of γ-Z box also at MESA in Mainz? (if not then MAMI) MOLLER: ultra-high precision sin2θW measurement in polarized e− e− scattering at 12 GeV CEBAF improvement over SLAC-E158 by factor of 5 PVDIS and SOLID: array of kinematics points to test strong, EW & new physics JLab 12 GeV upgrade

22

SLIDE 55

23

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

[GeV]

0.228 0.23 0.232 0.234 0.236 0.238 0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25

sin

2W()

Q Q

W

QW (Ra) (Cs)

SLAC E158

W(e)

QWeak QWeak

NuTeV

DIS

LEP 1 SLC Tevatron CMS

SOLID MOLLER

JLab JLab Mainz KVI Boulder JLab

PVDIS 6 GeV

JLab screening anti-screening

SM published

ngoing

proposed

Z

W

W Z

f

23

SLIDE 56

24

Ï

. 1 6 . 1 8 . 2 . 2 2 . 2 4 . 2 6

QWHThL QWHCsL Bates eC SLAC eD Mainz e Be PVES

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

C1 u-C1 d C1 u+C1 d

Ï

nm HnmL e nee nee

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

1.0
0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0

1.0
0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0

gA

ne

gV

ne

Effective 4-Fermi interactions

q̅qe̅γ5e e̅eν̅γ5ν

☞ talk on LENA by Estela Garces tuesday

24

SLIDE 57

gμ−2

aμ ≡ (1165920.80 ± 0.63)×10−9 BNL-E821 2004 SM: aμ ≡ (1165918.41 ± 0.48)×10−9 3.0 σ deviation (includes e+e− and τ-decay data) e+e− based (annihilation and radiative return): 3.6 σ τ based: 2.4 σ 2.3 σ discrepancy between experimental B(τ− → ν π0 π−) and prediction from e+e− and CVC but also 1.9 σ conflict between KLOE and BaBar (which is not inconsistent with τ-data) new physics (SUSY)? Personally, I am less concerned about the hadronic issues than the absence of BSM hints at the Tevatron/LHC

25

SLIDE 58

SM Interpretation: MH

26

SLIDE 59

27

150

mt [GeV]

10 20 30 50 100 200 300 500 1000

MH [GeV]

ΓZ, σhad, Rl, Rq (1σ) Z pole asymmetries (1σ) MW (1σ) mt (1σ) low energy precision data (90% CL) allowed by searches

excl. by 1 experiment
excl. by > 1 experiment

JE 2012

27

SLIDE 60

28

JE 2012

10 100 1000 10000

MH [GeV]

0.23 0.231 0.232 0.233 0.234 0.235

sin

2θe eff

E158 ALR(had) AFB(b) APV (Cs) MOLLER

JE 2012

28

SLIDE 61

Higgs boson mass (GeV)

100 200 300 400 500 600

SM

σ / σ Best fit

1.0
0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

68% CL band 68% CL band

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeV s CMS, 68% CL band

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeV s CMS, 29

30
20
10

10 20 30 40 50 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120

mH(GeV/c2)

2 ln(Q)

Observed Expected for background Expected for signal plus background

LEP

[GeV]

H

m 100 200 300 400 500 600 Signal strength

1.5
1
0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Best fit ) < 1 µ (

2 ln

= 7 TeV s

1

Ldt = 4.6-4.9 fb

ATLAS Preliminary

2011 Data

~1 (2.5) σ 0.8 (2.8) σ

29

SLIDE 62

100 125 150 200 250 300 400 500 600 800 700

MH [GeV]

1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81

Δχ

2

all data

100 125 150 200 250 300 400 500 600 800 700

MH [GeV]

4 1 9 16 25 36 49 64 81

Δχ

2

all data except electroweak precision

30

LHC data require “look elsewhere effect correction” Can be avoided when combined with electroweak precision data JE 2012

30

SLIDE 63

31

γγ

Higgs boson mass (GeV)

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

SM

σ / σ Best fit

1.0
0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

68% CL band 68% CL band

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeV s CMS,

[GeV]

H

m 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 Signal strength

1.5
1
0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Best fit ) < 1 µ (

2 ln

= 7 TeV s

1

Ldt = 4.6-4.9 fb

ATLAS Preliminary

2011 Data

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160

Local p-value

4

10

3

10

2

10

1

10 1

σ 1 σ 2 σ 3 σ 4

1

= 4.6-4.7 fb

int

= 7 TeV, Combined, L s CMS Preliminary, Interpretation requires look-elsewhere effect correction

)

2

Higgs boson mass (GeV/c

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160

SM

σ / σ Best fit

1

1 from fit σ 1 ± from fit σ 1 ±

[GeV]

H

M 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 Signal strength

2
1.5
1
0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Best fit

1

± = 7 TeV s

1

Ldt = 1.0-4.9 fb

ATLAS Preliminary

2011 Data

1 2 / 2 1 1 3 / 2 1 2

31

SLIDE 64

MH probability density

32

SLIDE 65

MH probability density

p(MH) ≡ exp[−χ2EW(MH)∕2] QLEP QTevatron QLHC MH-1 factorized form: neglect of correlations

32

SLIDE 66

MH probability density

p(MH) ≡ exp[−χ2EW(MH)∕2] QLEP QTevatron QLHC MH-1 factorized form: neglect of correlations QLEP(MH), QTevatron(MH): likelihood ratios H∕H+B

32

SLIDE 67

MH probability density

p(MH) ≡ exp[−χ2EW(MH)∕2] QLEP QTevatron QLHC MH-1 factorized form: neglect of correlations QLEP(MH), QTevatron(MH): likelihood ratios H∕H+B QLHC(MH) = QATLAS(MH) QCMS(MH) (but not available) instead: 2 ln Q ≡ χ2H+B(MH) − χ2B(MH) ≡ (1 − σ̅obs)2∕Δσ̅+2 − σ̅obs2∕Δσ̅−2

32

SLIDE 68

MH probability density

p(MH) ≡ exp[−χ2EW(MH)∕2] QLEP QTevatron QLHC MH-1 factorized form: neglect of correlations QLEP(MH), QTevatron(MH): likelihood ratios H∕H+B QLHC(MH) = QATLAS(MH) QCMS(MH) (but not available) instead: 2 ln Q ≡ χ2H+B(MH) − χ2B(MH) ≡ (1 − σ̅obs)2∕Δσ̅+2 − σ̅obs2∕Δσ̅−2 σ̅obs: eff. observed X-section (signal strength) combining all channels

32

SLIDE 69

MH probability density

p(MH) ≡ exp[−χ2EW(MH)∕2] QLEP QTevatron QLHC MH-1 factorized form: neglect of correlations QLEP(MH), QTevatron(MH): likelihood ratios H∕H+B QLHC(MH) = QATLAS(MH) QCMS(MH) (but not available) instead: 2 ln Q ≡ χ2H+B(MH) − χ2B(MH) ≡ (1 − σ̅obs)2∕Δσ̅+2 − σ̅obs2∕Δσ̅−2 σ̅obs: eff. observed X-section (signal strength) combining all channels Δσ̅±: error pointing in signal (+) and background (−) direction

32

SLIDE 70

MH probability density

p(MH) ≡ exp[−χ2EW(MH)∕2] QLEP QTevatron QLHC MH-1 factorized form: neglect of correlations QLEP(MH), QTevatron(MH): likelihood ratios H∕H+B QLHC(MH) = QATLAS(MH) QCMS(MH) (but not available) instead: 2 ln Q ≡ χ2H+B(MH) − χ2B(MH) ≡ (1 − σ̅obs)2∕Δσ̅+2 − σ̅obs2∕Δσ̅−2 σ̅obs: eff. observed X-section (signal strength) combining all channels Δσ̅±: error pointing in signal (+) and background (−) direction Poisson statistics ⇒ Δσ̅+ > Δσ̅− but often also Δσ̅+ < Δσ̅−

32

SLIDE 71

110 115 120 125 130 135

MH [GeV]

1 2 3 4 5 6

% probability per 0.1 GeV bin

all data

33

1 2 / 2 1 1

JE 2012

2.4 σ

33

SLIDE 72

Examples

34

SLIDE 73

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ*) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ

34

SLIDE 74

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ*) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ 2 ln QATLAS(244 GeV) ≈ 2 ln QATLAS(560 GeV) ≈ −3 (H → ZZ)

34

SLIDE 75

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ 2 ln QATLAS(244 GeV) ≈ 2 ln QATLAS(560 GeV) ≈ −3 (H → ZZ) 2 ln QCMS(119.5 GeV) = −5.6 (H → ZZ, WW*, b b̅, τ+ τ−)

34

SLIDE 76

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ 2 ln QATLAS(244 GeV) ≈ 2 ln QATLAS(560 GeV) ≈ −3 (H → ZZ) 2 ln QCMS(119.5 GeV) = −5.6 (H → ZZ, WW*, b b̅, τ+ τ−) 2 ln QCMS(124 GeV) = −6.6 (mostly H → γγ)

34

SLIDE 77

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ 2 ln QATLAS(244 GeV) ≈ 2 ln QATLAS(560 GeV) ≈ −3 (H → ZZ) 2 ln QCMS(119.5 GeV) = −5.6 (H → ZZ, WW*, b b̅, τ+ τ−) 2 ln QCMS(124 GeV) = −6.6 (mostly H → γγ) 2 ln QTevatron 2012(120 GeV) = −8.0 (mostly H → b b̅)

34

SLIDE 78

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ 2 ln QATLAS(244 GeV) ≈ 2 ln QATLAS(560 GeV) ≈ −3 (H → ZZ) 2 ln QCMS(119.5 GeV) = −5.6 (H → ZZ, WW*, b b̅, τ+ τ−) 2 ln QCMS(124 GeV) = −6.6 (mostly H → γγ) 2 ln QTevatron 2012(120 GeV) = −8.0 (mostly H → b b̅) 2 ln QLEP(117 GeV) = −1.7 (H → 4 jets ALEPH)

34

SLIDE 79

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ 2 ln QATLAS(244 GeV) ≈ 2 ln QATLAS(560 GeV) ≈ −3 (H → ZZ) 2 ln QCMS(119.5 GeV) = −5.6 (H → ZZ, WW*, b b̅, τ+ τ−) 2 ln QCMS(124 GeV) = −6.6 (mostly H → γγ) 2 ln QTevatron 2012(120 GeV) = −8.0 (mostly H → b b̅) 2 ln QLEP(117 GeV) = −1.7 (H → 4 jets ALEPH) χ2EW(127 GeV) − χ2EW(115.5 GeV) = 0.63

34

SLIDE 80

Examples

2 ln QATLAS(126 GeV) = 9.8 − 1.1 = −8.7 (H → γγ, ZZ) √8.7 = 2.9 while quoted local significance of excess = 3.6 σ 2 ln QATLAS(244 GeV) ≈ 2 ln QATLAS(560 GeV) ≈ −3 (H → ZZ) 2 ln QCMS(119.5 GeV) = −5.6 (H → ZZ, WW*, b b̅, τ+ τ−) 2 ln QCMS(124 GeV) = −6.6 (mostly H → γγ) 2 ln QTevatron 2012(120 GeV) = −8.0 (mostly H → b b̅) 2 ln QLEP(117 GeV) = −1.7 (H → 4 jets ALEPH) χ2EW(127 GeV) − χ2EW(115.5 GeV) = 0.63 2 ln pdirect(125 GeV) = −13.2

34

SLIDE 81

35

105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data except LHC Gaussian: MH = 119.0 ± 4.5 GeV

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data except CMS Gaussian: MH = 125.8 ± 1.3 GeV

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data except ATLAS Gaussian: MH = 124.3 ± 1.1 GeV

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

3.4 σ 1.6 σ 2.1 σ 0.9 σ

35

SLIDE 82

New Physics Interpretations

36

SLIDE 83

37

JE 2012

1.5
1.0
0.5

0.5 1.0 1.5

S

1.0
0.5

0.5 1.0

T

MH = 600 GeV MH = 124.8 GeV

all (90% CL) all (90% CL) ΓZ, σhad, Rl, Rq asymmetries MW ν scattering e scattering APV Cs (0.48%)

JE 2012

37

SLIDE 84

38

JE 2012

1.5
1.0
0.5

0.5 1.0 1.5

S

1.0
0.5

0.5 1.0

T

MH = 600 GeV MH = 124.8 GeV

all (90% CL) all (90% CL) ΓZ, σhad, Rl, Rq asymmetries MW ν scattering e scattering APV Cs (0.48%) APV Ra

+ (0.1%)

JE 2012

38

SLIDE 85

canonical examples: 4G & 2HD

39

SM4 Higgs boson mass (GeV)

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

SM4

σ / σ 95% CL limit on

1

10 1 10

2

10

Combined )

1

bb (4.7 fb → H )

1

(4.6 fb τ τ → H )

1

(4.8 fb γ γ → H )

1

WW (4.6 fb → H )

1

ZZ (4.7 fb → H

CMS Preliminary = 7 TeV s

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb

Combined )

1

bb (4.7 fb → H )

1

(4.6 fb τ τ → H )

1

(4.8 fb γ γ → H )

1

WW (4.6 fb → H )

1

ZZ (4.7 fb → H

39

SLIDE 86

canonical examples: 4G & 2HD

if Higgs hint is real, an extra fermion generation is ruled out (99.6% CL) Kuflik, Nir, Volansky 2012

39

SM4 Higgs boson mass (GeV)

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

SM4

σ / σ 95% CL limit on

1

10 1 10

2

10

Combined )

1

bb (4.7 fb → H )

1

(4.6 fb τ τ → H )

1

(4.8 fb γ γ → H )

1

WW (4.6 fb → H )

1

ZZ (4.7 fb → H

CMS Preliminary = 7 TeV s

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb

Combined )

1

bb (4.7 fb → H )

1

(4.6 fb τ τ → H )

1

(4.8 fb γ γ → H )

1

WW (4.6 fb → H )

1

ZZ (4.7 fb → H

39

SLIDE 87

canonical examples: 4G & 2HD

if Higgs hint is real, an extra fermion generation is ruled out (99.6% CL) Kuflik, Nir, Volansky 2012 3 scenarios (all need some tuning & faith; mass spectra generally similar) MH ≲ 120 GeV e.g., Dighe, Ghosh,

Godbole, Prasath 2012

MH ≳ 450 GeV

Buchkremer, Gérard, Maltoni 2012

MH ≈ 125 GeV + physics beyond 4G. Example: 2HD4G

Bellantoni, Heckman, JE 2012

39

SM4 Higgs boson mass (GeV)

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

SM4

σ / σ 95% CL limit on

1

10 1 10

2

10

Combined )

1

bb (4.7 fb → H )

1

(4.6 fb τ τ → H )

1

(4.8 fb γ γ → H )

1

WW (4.6 fb → H )

1

ZZ (4.7 fb → H

CMS Preliminary = 7 TeV s

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb

Combined )

1

bb (4.7 fb → H )

1

(4.6 fb τ τ → H )

1

(4.8 fb γ γ → H )

1

WW (4.6 fb → H )

1

ZZ (4.7 fb → H

39

SLIDE 88

40

1

1

α cos β

1

1

β

x x x

Zψ

x x x x

MOLLER PVDIS

ZR1 ZI ZR Z χ Zη ZN ZS

x xZd

/

xZL1 xZp

/

xZB-L x

ZLR

x

Zn

/

ZALR

x

Y

x x

Zu-int

+

QW(H)

x

QW(Cs) E158

ZL

/

MZ’ = 1.2 TeV

40

SLIDE 89

41

0.002
0.001

0.001 0.002

0.002
0.001

0.001 0.002 ∆CKM ∆e/µ

CKM unitarity (first row) Γ[π→ν e (γ)]∕ Γ[π→ν μ (γ)] STU LHC bounds combined

Bauman, JE, Ramsey-Musolf 2012

MSSM with R-parity

41

SLIDE 90

Conclusions

42

SLIDE 91

Conclusions

43

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

43

SLIDE 92

Conclusions

Precision tests have reached per-mille and sub per-mille accuracy in derived quantities.

43

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

43

SLIDE 93

Conclusions

Precision tests have reached per-mille and sub per-mille accuracy in derived quantities. Precision data in very good agreement with the SM ⇒ tight constraints on new physics.

43

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

43

SLIDE 94

Conclusions

Precision tests have reached per-mille and sub per-mille accuracy in derived quantities. Precision data in very good agreement with the SM ⇒ tight constraints on new physics. When combined with the absence of BSM signals at the LHC ⇒ more and more likely that new physics is separted from the SM by at least a little hierarchy.

43

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

43

SLIDE 95

Conclusions

Precision tests have reached per-mille and sub per-mille accuracy in derived quantities. Precision data in very good agreement with the SM ⇒ tight constraints on new physics. When combined with the absence of BSM signals at the LHC ⇒ more and more likely that new physics is separted from the SM by at least a little hierarchy. Only tantalizing deviation is in gμ−2.

43

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

43

SLIDE 96

Conclusions

Precision tests have reached per-mille and sub per-mille accuracy in derived quantities. Precision data in very good agreement with the SM ⇒ tight constraints on new physics. When combined with the absence of BSM signals at the LHC ⇒ more and more likely that new physics is separted from the SM by at least a little hierarchy. Only tantalizing deviation is in gμ−2. Within SM, Higgs searches + EW precision data give the LHC/Tevatron Higgs hints a 3 ½ σ significance (no need for look-elsewhere effect correction).

43

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

43

SLIDE 97

Conclusions

Precision tests have reached per-mille and sub per-mille accuracy in derived quantities. Precision data in very good agreement with the SM ⇒ tight constraints on new physics. When combined with the absence of BSM signals at the LHC ⇒ more and more likely that new physics is separted from the SM by at least a little hierarchy. Only tantalizing deviation is in gμ−2. Within SM, Higgs searches + EW precision data give the LHC/Tevatron Higgs hints a 3 ½ σ significance (no need for look-elsewhere effect correction). Not confirming the LHC Higgs hint would be a much bigger deal than discovering it

43

115 120 125 130

MH [GeV]

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

probability per 0.1 GeV

all data Gaussian: MH = 124.8 ± 0.7 GeV

43

SLIDE 98

Back-ups

44

SLIDE 99

45

SM

σ / σ Best fit

1
0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4l → ZZ → H WW → H γ γ → H τ τ → H bb → H

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeV s CMS,

= 124 GeV

H

m Combined (68%) Single channel

SM

σ / σ Best fit

1 -0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4l → ZZ → H WW → H γ γ → H τ τ → H bb → H

1

L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeV s CMS,

= 119.5 GeV

H

m Combined (68%) Single channel

45